The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
One Size Fits All? The Portability of Macro-Appraisal by a Comparative Analysis of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand JOHN ROBERTS RÉSUMÉ Cet article analyse la méthodologie de la macro-évaluation ailleurs que dans le contexte canadien où cette approche a été développée et examine la pertinence du modèle pour les archives gouvernementales au Canada, en Afrique du Sud et en Nouvelle-Zélande. L’auteur étudie la macro-évaluation d’abord en tant que cadre théorique, puis comme une réponse aux difficultés d’ordre pratique qui découlent des autres approches d’évaluation archivistique. Il se penche ensuite sur les questions de gestion du changement entourant l’adoption de la macro-évaluation dans d’autres juridictions. L’article conclut que tant la théorie que la pratique doivent être prises en compte lorsqu’on envisage l’adoption de nouveaux modèles et que, bien que les condi- tions locales doivent être considérées, la valeur possible des innovations provenant de l’étranger ne doit pas être ignorée. ABSTRACT This article examines the methodology of macro-appraisal in environ- ments other than the Canadian context in which it was originally developed. It consid- ers the suitability of the model for government archives in Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand. Macro-appraisal is discussed first as a theoretical framework and then as a response to practical difficulties arising from other approaches to appraisal. The change management issues surrounding the possible adoption of macro-appraisal in other jurisdictions are explored. The article suggests that both theory and practice need to be addressed when considering the adoption of new models. While local conditions need to be considered, the possible value of overseas innovations should not be ignored. Introduction Appraisal has, in recent years, been one of the most debated subjects in archi- val theory and practice. Macro-appraisal thinking represents a major Canadian contribution to this debate, as archivists and archival institutions grapple with increasing quantities and complexities of the records universe. The purpose of this paper is to explore the portability of macro-appraisal: to what extent does it offer a universal solution to issues of appraisal? Macro- appraisal has its roots in specific record-keeping problems of theory and prac- tice: to what extent is its effectiveness or suitability bounded by situational factors? Under what circumstances is macro-appraisal a suitable way of 48 Archivaria 52 expressing the need for some form of selection? In particular, this issue will be explored through consideration of government archives in Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand, all jurisdictions in which macro-appraisal has been implemented or considered.1 I would like to make two caveats. Being from New Zealand, I do not intend to critique the theory or implementation of macro-appraisal in Canada or South Africa. The aim is rather to understand the necessary pre-conditions for successful use of macro-appraisal. Second, in considering macro-appraisal in Canada and South Africa I have been heavily dependent on published discus- sion and analysis. This will inevitably represent only a part of the full picture, and the complex nature of the dynamics affecting the suitability of a particular model should not be underestimated. Debate on appraisal theory and practice is hampered by a lack of wide- spread shared understandings of key terms within the archival community – and between archival communities. This article uses the term macro-appraisal to refer to the formal appraisal model used by the National Archives of Can- ada,2 and directly inspired, closely related approaches such as that of the National Archives of South Africa. Similar but distinct appraisal frameworks, such as the Dutch PIVOT model, or Australian functional appraisal as articu- lated in the DIRKS methodology, are considered separate from the macro- appraisal tradition for the purposes of this essay. Record-keeping professionals have, in recent years, become more aware of the contingent nature of strategic responses, and of the cultural and contextual limitations of particular methodologies, particularly concerning electronic records. Our literature deals repeatedly with the importance of recognizing organizational culture in choosing strategies to deal with record-keeping issues. David Bearman has claimed that “the corporate culture of the organiza- tion … will probably be the most important variable in selecting the tactics to use in management of electronic records.”3 The environment or context – or time and place – I suggest, is equally important in the selection of appraisal methodology.4 1 This article is based on work carried out for study towards a Master of Information Manage- ment and Systems at Monash University, Australia, and formed the basis of a paper to the 2001 ACA Conference in Winnipeg. The views in this paper are my own and do not necessarily rep- resent the position of Archives New Zealand. I would like to thank Terry Cook and Verne Har- ris for their helpful comments during the development of the paper. 2 Most recently articulated in National Archives of Canada: Government Records Branch, Appraisal Methodology: Macro-Appraisal and Functional Analysis (Ottawa, 2001). 3 David Bearman, Electronic Evidence: Strategies for Managing Records in Contemporary Organizations (Pittsburgh, 1994), p. 187. 4 See Terry Cook, “Overview of Appraisal: Why are we here this week?” paper to Monash Uni- versity Appraisal Seminar, March 1999, p. 16: “There is no universal standard or rigid theory; solutions – and indeed animating concepts – will rightly reflect their time and place.” The Portability of Macro-Appraisal 49 Background Before looking in detail at the issues which arise in the development, imple- mentation, and ongoing use of macro-appraisal, it is worthwhile to consider the three environments which will provide the points of reference for this anal- ysis of macro-appraisal. Canada Pressure on appraisal practice in Canada mounted through the 1980s with the passing of access to information and privacy legislation in 1983 (ATIP), of the National Archives of Canada Act in 1987, and with changes in techno- logical and administrative dimensions of the government record-keeping environment. Response to these pressures, drawing on a range of sources, emerged in the macro-appraisal approach proposed by Terry Cook in the 1991 RAMP study, The Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal Information, and introduced by the National Archives of Canada in 1991 to reform the appraisal programme for government records. Macro-appraisal has been described as a planned, research-based, top-down, functions-cen- tred approach that focuses especially on the citizen’s interaction with the state. Its main elements are: the Government-Wide Plan for the Disposition of Records, which prioritizes agencies; criteria for assessing functions and programmes within agencies; Multi-Year Disposition Plans negotiated with target agencies; and the methodology for appraisal within the context of each planned submission.5 South Africa The practice of appraisal in South Africa emerged as a key discussion point during the democratization of the Republic. A visit by Eric Ketelaar in 1992 first raised macro-appraisal as an issue for South African archivists.6 Then, in November 1994, Terry Cook visited South Africa and spoke to audiences across the country on appraisal issues, especially the macro-appraisal model then being implemented in Canada. The challenges issued by Cook heightened existing dissatisfaction with appraisal theory and practice, and led to the establishment of an appraisal review committee to assess existing appraisal policy, to assess macro- appraisal in the same terms, and to make recommendations, including “the 5 See Bruce Wilson, “Systematic Appraisal of the Records of the Government of Canada at the National Archives of Canada,” Archivaria 38 (Fall 1994), pp. 218–31. 6 Verne Harris, “Redefining Archives in South Africa: Public Archives and Society in Transition, 1990–1996,” Archivaria 42 (Fall 1996), note 91. 50 Archivaria 52 desirability of adopting macro-appraisal partially or in toto and if desirable, how change should be effected and what it would require.”7 As part of the committee’s research, its chair, Verne Harris, visited Canada to investigate the macro-appraisal programme at the National Archives of Canada. The findings of the committee were presented in March 1996, and included the key recommendation that macro-appraisal be adopted as the foundation of State Archives appraisal policy.8 New Zealand Appraisal practice in New Zealand in the past ten years has been marked by the introduction in 1991 of a charged, contestable model for public records appraisal, in line with widespread public sector reforms based on contractual- ism.9 Under this approach, Archives New Zealand charges agencies for appraisal work, competing with private sector consultants to conduct the analysis. Dissatisfaction with current appraisal practice has emerged in New Zealand over recent years, and this resulted in a formal review of the appraisal regime in 1998-99.10 This review did not focus specifically on appraisal meth- odology, but there was interest in macro-appraisal expressed during the con- sultation phase of the review, and recommendations in the final report included further investigation of how macro-appraisal might work in practice in a New Zealand public sector environment. Development of Macro-Appraisal To understand